Book 4 comments: Pt. 3

[joywitch999]

Original Yahoo! HPFG Header:
No: HPFGUIDX C4074
From: joywitch999
Subject: Book 4 comments: Pt. 3
Date: 7/12/00 4:35 pm  (ET)

I have so much to say about GoF that I am dividing it into 4 posts,
so that none will be overly long, and so that anyone can skip a part
they are not interested in, or all of it if they are not interested in
anything I have to say (Imagine that!). Each post repeats these first
few paragraphs so as to provide the requested spoiler space. I am going
to cross-post this on Harry Potter for Grownups, Harry Potter Anonymous,
and alt.fan.harry-potter.

Let me start by first apologizing for my overly-academic approach
here. This is a problem that occurs among People Who Spend Too Much Time
in Graduate School. As I have spent most of my adult life in college,
and am about to get my Ph.D., I just can't help it. Anyway, I have been
thinking about several things:

1. General comments, including criticisms
2. Plot holes.
3. The elements of social satire in the Harry Potter books.
4. The influence of fame and reader feedback on JKR's writing style.

LOOK OUT BELOW!!!!! SPOILERS ACOMIN'!!!!!!!!!

3. Social satire: I really like the satirical elements of the Harry Potter
books, which are far more pronounced in GoF than they are in the earlier
books. In GoF, this occurs in JKR's depiction of (a) newspaper reporters,
(b) inept bureaucracies, and (c) oppressed minorities.

(a) The newspaper reporter satire is very obvious, of course, Rita Skeeter
being an unfortunately typical character. The "Quick-Quotes Quill" is a
particularly funny and biting parody of the way many reporters distort
everyone's comments.

(b) The depiction of the Ministry of Magic as being just as full of
corruption and inefficiency as any other bureaucracy was sadly funny as
well. Most governments are, unfortunately, full of the types that JKR
fills the Ministry with. There are weak, ineffectual, cowards like Fudge
who, when the moment comes for them to provide leadership, slink fearfully
into denial. Fudge seems to be sort of a Neville Chamberlain (sp?) type,
who is not likely to leave a great legacy. Then there are the stuffy,
humorless, inflexible, self-important bores like Percy Weasley, who go
on writing reports on minor, unimportant problems while not noticing
impending, major disasters. Also the slightly corrupt, incompetent but
likeable types like Ludo Bagman, who really only has his job (and escaped
jail) because of his celebrity sports-star status.

(c) I thought that Hermione's championing the cause of the house-elves,
despite the fact that the house-elves have little or no interest in the
cause, was very funny, and to me familiar-sounding. [RANT ALERT!] I work
in the international development field, and I have found that the world
is full of do-gooders, mostly Europeans and North Americans, who go to
developing countries and TELL people what would make their lives better,
rather than ASK people what would make their lives better. A lot of time
and money is wasted on projects that fail because of this. Hermione has
fallen into this trap with the house-elves. This is understandable, and
excusable IMHO, when the do-gooder is 14 years old. However, history
and experience show that an oppressed group, whether battered wives,
poor farmers, or elves, can improve the conditions of their lives only
if and when they wish to do so. ONLY when they decide that they want to
do this, is help from outside useful in enabling them to succeed.

Another thing I like is the Star Trek-like metaphorical treatment
of contemporary social issues, such as the obvious parallel between
anti-muggle prejudice and racism. On the Hogwarts Express, in the last
chapter of GoF, when Malfoy is raving about how the muggle-lovers and
mudbloods will die because the Dark Lord has returned, he sounds to me
just like some crazy redneck Klan member raving about how the South will
rise again.